Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-126 December 26, 1901

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
DOROTEO RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants. 

George R. Harvey, for appellants.

Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee. 

WILLARD, J.:

At the former hearing of this cause before the old Supreme Court certain objections were made
concerning the sufficiency of the complaint filed, which objections are in some respects the same
which the attorney for the defense now presents. This court annulled the judgment of conviction
dictated in the cause, remanding the same to the lower court for a new trial. The court must have
deemed the said complaint sufficient, since it would otherwise have ordered the filing of a new
complaint. This decision of the question is therefore res adjudicata.

Since the order dictated by this court vacated only the proceedings held by the trial court
commencing with the introduction of the evidence, the formal arraignment remained in full force, and
therefore in holding the new trial there was no necessity for requiring the appearance anew of the
accused to plead guilty or not guilty.

The accused were not compelled but merely permitted to testify before the taking of the evidence
offered on the part of the Government. This was an irregularity but did not prejudice the essential
rights of the accused, and therefore, in view of the provisions of article 10 of General Orders, No. 58,
is not sufficient to warrant the annulling of the sentence.

The three elements which are necessary in order that there may be a conviction of the crime of rape,
according to the attorney for the defense, are all included in this one word. When a woman testified
that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is necessary to constitute the commission of
this crime has been committed. It is merely a question then, whether or not this court accepts her
statement. It can not be said that the proofs are lacking of the existence of the elements which
together constitute the crime. In the present case we are convinced that the woman stated the truth,
and we believe Ramos to be guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

With respect to Torre we have arrived at the conclusion that he should be acquitted. He did not rape
the woman. When the two unknown persons presented themselves he ran away. It is true that the
witnesses for the prosecution stated that he arrived at the house with Ramos, but there is no proof
that he had knowledge of any intention then entertained by Ramos to rape the woman nor can we
see how Torre in any manner has lent his aid knowingly to the commission of the crime.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed in all its parts in so far as affects the defendant Ramos
and reserved as to defendant Torre. The latter is acquitted of the crime of which he is accused.

Affirming that portion of the sentence consulted which is in conformity with this decision and
reversing the remaining portion, with one-half of the costs incurred in this action taxed against the
defendant Ramos and the remaining one-half taxed de oficio, the case is remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Ladd, J., did not sit in this case.